Part 6

It is thus inscribed:[101] “John Knox, the bound servant of Jesus Christ, unto his best beloved brethren of the congregation of the castle of St Andrews, and to all professors of Christ’s true evangel, desireth {73} grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, with perpetual consolation of the Holy Spirit.” After mentioning a number of instances in which the name of God had been magnified, and the interests of religion advanced, by the exile of those who were driven from their native countries by tyranny, as in the examples of Joseph, Moses, Daniel, and the primitive Christians, he goes on thus: “Which thing shall openly declare this godly work subsequent. The counsel of Satan in the persecution[102] of us, first, was to stop the wholesome wind of Christ’s evangel to blow upon the parts where we converse and dwell; and, secondly, so to oppress ourselves by corporal affliction and worldly calamities, that no place should we find to godly study. But by the great mercy and infinite goodness of God our Father, shall these his counsels be frustrate and vain. For, in despite of him and all his wicked members, shall yet that same word (O Lord! this I speak, confiding in thy holy promise) openly be proclaimed in that same country. And how that our merciful Father, amongst these tempestuous storms, by[103] all men’s expectation, hath provided some rest for us, this present work shall testify, which was sent to me in Roane, lying in irons, and sore troubled by corporal infirmity, in a galley named Nostre Dame, by an honourable brother, Mr Henry Balnaves of Hallhill, for the present holden as prisoner, (though unjustly) in the old palace of Roane.[104] {74} Which work after I had once again read, to the great comfort and consolation of my spirit, by counsel and advice of the foresaid noble and faithful man, author of the said work, I thought expedient it should be digested in chapters, &c. Which thing I have done as imbecility of ingine[105] and incommodity of place would permit; not so much to illustrate the work (which in the self is godly and perfect) as, together with the foresaid nobleman and faithful brother, to give my confession of the article of justification therein contained.[106] And I beseech you, beloved brethren, earnestly to consider, if we deny any thing presently, (or yet conceal and hide,) which any time before we professed in that article. And now we have not the castle of St Andrews to be our defence, as some of our enemies falsely accused us, saying, If we wanted our walls, we would not speak so boldly. But blessed be that Lord whose infinite goodness and wisdom hath taken from us the occasion of that slander, and hath shown unto us, that the serpent hath power only to sting the heel, that is, to molest and trouble the flesh, but not to move the spirit from constant adhering to Christ Jesus, nor public professing of his true word. O blessed be thou, Eternal Father! which, by thy only mercy, hast preserved us to this day, and provided that the confession of our faith (which ever we desired all men to have known) should, by this treatise, come plainly to light. Continue, O Lord! and grant unto us, that, as now with pen and ink, so shortly we may confess with voice and tongue the same before {75} thy congregation; upon whom look, O Lord God! with the eyes of thy mercy, and suffer no more darkness to prevail. I pray you pardon me, beloved brethren, that on this manner I digress: vehemency of spirit (the Lord knoweth I lie not) compelleth me thereto.”

The prisoners in Mont St Michel consulted Knox, as to the lawfulness of attempting to escape by breaking their prison, which was opposed by some of them, lest their escape should subject their brethren who remained in confinement to more severe treatment. He returned for answer, that such fears were not a sufficient reason for relinquishing the design, and that they might, with a safe conscience, effect their escape, provided it could be done “without the blood of any shed or spilt; but to shed any man’s blood for their freedom, he would never consent.”[107] The attempt was accordingly made by them, and successfully executed, “without harm done to the person of any, and without touching any thing that appertained to the king, the captain, or the house.”[108]

At length, after enduring a tedious and severe imprisonment of nineteen months, Knox obtained his liberty. This happened in the month of February, 1549, according to the modern computation.[109] By what means his liberation was procured I cannot certainly {76} determine. One account says, that the galley in which he was confined was taken in the Channel by the English.[110] According to another account, he was liberated by order of the king of France, because it appeared, on examination, that he was not concerned in the murder of cardinal Beatoun, nor accessory to other crimes committed by those who held the castle of St Andrews.[111] In the opinion of others, his liberty was purchased by his acquaintances, who fondly cherished the hope that he was destined to accomplish some great achievements, and were anxious, by their interposition in his behalf, to be instrumental in promoting the designs of providence.[112] It is more probable, however, that he owed his deliverance to the comparative indifference with which he and his {77} brethren were now regarded by the French court, who, having procured the consent of the parliament of Scotland to the marriage of queen Mary to the dauphin, and obtained possession of her person, felt no longer any inclination to revenge the quarrels of the Scottish clergy.

{78} PERIOD III.

FROM THE YEAR 1549, WHEN HE WAS RELEASED FROM THE FRENCH GALLEYS, TO THE YEAR 1554, WHEN HE FLED FROM ENGLAND.

UPON regaining his liberty, Knox immediately repaired to England. The objections which he had formerly entertained against a residence in that kingdom were now in a great measure removed. Henry VIII. had died in the year 1547; and archbishop Cranmer, released from the severe restraint under which he had been held by his tyrannical and capricious master, now exerted himself with much zeal in advancing the Reformation. In this he was cordially supported by those who governed the kingdom during the minority of Edward VI. But the undertaking was extensive and difficult; and, in carrying it on, he found a great deficiency of ecclesiastical coadjutors. Although the most of the bishops had externally complied with the alterations introduced by authority, they remained attached to the old religion, and secretly thwarted, instead of seconding, the measures of the primate. The inferior clergy were, in general, as unable as they were unwilling to undertake the instruction of the people,[113] whose ignorance of religion {79} was in many parts of the country extreme, and whose superstitious habits had become quite inveterate. This evil, which prevailed universally throughout the popish church, instead of being corrected, was considerably aggravated by a ruinous measure adopted at the commencement of the English reformation. When Henry suppressed the monasteries, and seized their revenues, he allotted pensions to the monks during life; but to relieve the royal treasury of this burden, small benefices in the gift of the crown were afterwards substituted in the place of pensions. The example of the monarch was imitated by the nobles who had procured monastic lands. By this means a great part of the inferior livings were held by ignorant and superstitious monks, who were a dead weight upon the English church, and a principal cause of the nation’s sudden relapse to popery, at the subsequent accession of queen Mary.[114]

Cranmer had already adopted measures for remedying this alarming evil. With the concurrence of the protector and privy council, he had invited a number of learned protestants from Germany into England, and had placed Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, Paul {80} Fagius, and Emanuel Tremellius, as professors in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. This was a wise measure, which secured a future supply of useful preachers, trained up by these able masters; but the necessity was urgent, and demanded immediate provision. For this purpose, instead of fixing a number of orthodox and popular preachers in particular charges, it was judged most expedient to employ them in itinerating through different parts of the kingdom, where the clergy were most illiterate or disaffected to the Reformation, and where the inhabitants were most addicted to superstition.

In these circumstances, our zealous countryman did not remain long unemployed. The reputation which he had gained by his preaching at St Andrews,[115] and his late sufferings, recommended him to the English council; and soon after his arrival in England, he was sent down from London to preach in Berwick.[116]

The council had every reason to be pleased with {81} the choice which they had made of a northern preacher. He had long thirsted for the opportunity which he now enjoyed. His love for the truth, and his zeal against popery, had been inflamed during his captivity, and he spared neither time nor labour in the instruction of those to whom he was sent. Regarding the worship of the Romish church as idolatrous, and its doctrines as damnable, he attacked both with the utmost fervour, and exerted himself in drawing his hearers from the belief of the one, and from the observance of the other, with as much eagerness as if he had been saving their lives from a devouring flame or flood. Nor were his efforts fruitless. During the two years that he continued in Berwick, numbers were converted by his ministry from ignorance and the errors of popery; and a visible reformation of manners was produced upon the soldiers of the garrison, who had formerly been noted for licentiousness and turbulence.[117]

The popularity and success of a protestant preacher were very galling to the clergy in that quarter, who were, almost to a man, bigoted papists, and enjoyed the patronage of the bishop of the diocese. Tonstal, bishop of Durham, like his friend Sir Thomas More, was one of those men of whom it is extremely difficult to give a correct idea, qualities of an opposite kind being mixed and blended in his character. Surpassing all his brethren in polite learning, he was the patron of bigotry and superstition. Displaying, in {82} private life, that moderation and suavity of manners which liberal studies usually inspire,[118] he was accessory to the public measures of a reign disgraced throughout by the most shocking barbarities. Claiming our praise for honesty by opposing in parliament innovations which his judgment condemned, he forfeited it by the most tame acquiescence and ample conformity; thereby maintaining his station amidst all the revolutions of religion during three successive reigns. He had paid little attention to the science immediately connected with his profession, and most probably was indifferent to the controversies then agitated; but, living in an age in which it was necessary for every man to choose his side, he adhered to those opinions which had been long established, and which were friendly to the power and splendour of the ecclesiastical order. As if anxious to atone for his fault, in having been instrumental in producing a breach between England and the Roman see, he opposed in parliament all the subsequent changes. Opposition awakened his zeal; he became at last a strenuous advocate for the popish tenets; and wrote a book in defence of transubstantiation, of which, says bishop Burnet, “the Latin style is better than the divinity.”

The labours of one who exerted himself to overthrow what the bishop wished to support, could not {83} fail to be very disagreeable to Tonstal. As Knox acted under the authority of the protector and council, he durst not inhibit him; but he was disposed to listen to the informations which were lodged against him by the clergy. Although the town of Berwick was Knox’s principal station during the years 1549 and 1550, it is probable that he was appointed to preach occasionally in the adjacent country. Whether, in the course of his itinerancy, he had preached in Newcastle, or whether he was called up to it in consequence of complaints against the sermons which he had delivered at Berwick, it is difficult to ascertain. It is, however, certain, that a charge was exhibited against him before the bishop, for teaching that the sacrifice of the mass was idolatrous, and that a day was appointed for him publicly to assign his reasons for this opinion.

Accordingly, on the 4th of April, 1550, a large assembly being convened in Newcastle, among whom were the members of the council,[119] the bishop of Durham, and the learned men of his cathedral, Knox delivered in their presence an ample defence of his doctrine. After an appropriate exordium, in which he stated to the audience the occasion and design of his appearance, and cautioned them against the powerful {84} prejudices of education and custom in favour of erroneous opinions and corrupt practices in religion, he proceeded to establish the doctrine which he had taught. The manner in which he treated the subject was well adapted to his auditory, which was composed both of the learned and the illiterate. He proposed his arguments in the syllogistic form, according to the practice of the schools, but illustrated them with a plainness level to the meanest capacity among his hearers. The propositions on which he rested his defence are very descriptive of his characteristic boldness of thinking and acting. A more cautious and timid disputant would have satisfied himself with attacking the grosser notions which were generally entertained by the people on this subject, and exposing the glaring abuses of which the priests were guilty in the lucrative sale of masses. Knox scorned to occupy himself in demolishing these feeble and falling outworks, and proceeded directly to establish a principle which overthrew the whole fabric of superstition. He engaged to prove that the mass, “even in her most high degree,” and when stripped of the meretricious dress in which she now appeared, was an idol struck from the inventive brain of superstition, which had supplanted the sacrament of the supper, and engrossed the honour due to the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. “Spare no arrows,” was Knox’s motto; the authority of scripture, and the force of reasoning, grave reproof, and pointed irony, were weapons which he alternately employed. In the course of this defence, he did not restrain those sallies of raillery, {85} which the fooleries of the popish superstition irresistibly provoke, even from such as are deeply impressed with its pernicious tendency. Before concluding his discourse, he adverted to certain doctrines which he had heard in that place on the preceding sabbath, the falsehood of which he engaged to demonstrate; but, in the first place, he said, he would submit the notes of the sermon, which he had taken down, to the preacher, that he might correct them as he saw proper; for his object was not to misrepresent, or captiously entrap a speaker, by catching at words unadvisedly uttered, but to defend the truth, and warn his hearers against errors destructive to their souls. The defence, as drawn up by Knox himself, is now before me in manuscript, and the reader who wishes a more particular account of its contents, will find it in the notes.[120]

This defence had the effect of extending Knox’s fame through the north of England, while it completely silenced the bishop and his learned assistants.[121] {86} He continued to preach at Berwick during the remaining part of this year, and in the following was removed to Newcastle, and placed in a sphere of greater usefulness. In December 1551, the privy council conferred on him a mark of their approbation, by appointing him one of king Edward’s chaplains in ordinary. “It was appointed,” says his majesty, in a journal of important transactions which he wrote with his own hand, “that I should have six chaplains ordinary, of which two ever to be present, and four absent in preaching; one year, two in Wales, two in Lancashire and Derby; next year, two in the marches of Scotland, and two in Yorkshire; the third year, two in Norfolk and Essex, and two in Kent and Sussex. These six to be Bill, Harle,[122] Perne, Grindal, Bradford, and ――――.”[123] The name of the sixth has been dashed out of the journal, but the industrious Strype has shown that it was Knox.[124] “These, it seems, were the most zealous and readiest preachers, who were sent about as itinerants, to supply the defects of the greatest part of the clergy, who were generally very faulty.”[125] An annual salary of forty pounds was allotted to each of the chaplains.[126]

{87} In the course of this year, Knox was consulted about the Book of Common Prayer, which was undergoing a revisal. On that occasion, it is probable that he was called up for a short time to London. Although the persons who had the chief direction of ecclesiastical affairs were not disposed, or did not deem it as yet expedient, to introduce that thorough reform which he judged necessary, in order to reduce the worship of the English church to the scripture‑model, his representations on this head were not altogether disregarded. He had influence to procure an important change in the communion‑office, completely excluding the notion of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, and guarding against the adoration of the elements, which was too much countenanced by the practice still continued, of kneeling at their reception.[127] In his Admonition to the Professors of the Truth in England, Knox speaks of these amendments with great satisfaction. “Also God gave boldness and knowledge to the court of parliament to take {88} away the round clipped god, wherein standeth all the holiness of the papists, and to command common bread to be used at the Lord’s table, and also to take away the most part of superstitions (kneeling at the Lord’s table excepted) which before profaned Christ’s true religion.” These alterations gave great offence to the papists. In a disputation with Latimer, after the accession of queen Mary, the prolocutor, Dr Weston, complained of our countryman’s influence in procuring them. “A runnagate Scot did take away the adoration or worshipping of Christ in the sacrament, by whose procurement that heresy was put into the last communion‑book; so much prevailed that one man’s authority at that time.”[128] In the following year, he was employed in revising the Articles of Religion, previous to their ratification by parliament.[129]

During his residence at Berwick, he had formed an acquaintance with Marjory Bowes, a young lady {89} who afterwards became his wife. Her father, Richard Bowes, was the youngest son of Sir Ralph Bowes of Streatlam; her mother was Elizabeth, the daughter and one of the co‑heirs of Sir Roger Aske of Aske.[130] Before he left Berwick, Knox had paid his addresses to this young lady, and met with a favourable reception. Her mother also was friendly to the match; but, owing to some reason, most probably the presumed aversion of her father, it was deemed prudent to delay solemnizing the union. But having come under a formal promise to her, he considered himself, from that time, as sacredly bound, and in his letters to Mrs Bowes always addressed that lady by the name of mother.[131]

Without derogating from the praise justly due to those worthy men who were at this time employed in disseminating religious truth through England, I may say, that our countryman was not behind the first of them, in the unwearied assiduity with which he laboured in the stations assigned to him. From an early period his mind seems to have presaged, that the golden opportunity now enjoyed would not {90} be of long duration. He was eager to “redeem the time,” and indefatigable both in his studies and in teaching. In addition to his ordinary services on sabbath, he preached regularly on week‑days, frequently on every day of the week.[132] Besides the portion of time which he allotted to study, he was often employed in conversing with persons who applied to him for advice on religious subjects.[133] The council were not insensible to the value of his services, and conferred on him several marks of their approbation. They wrote different letters to the governors and principal inhabitants of the places where he preached, recommending him to their notice and protection.[134] They secured him in the regular payment of his salary until he should be provided with a benefice.[135] And out of respect to him, they, in September 1552, granted a patent to his brother, William Knox, a merchant, giving him liberty, for a limited time, to trade to any port of England, in a vessel of a hundred tons burden.[136]

{91} But the things which recommended Knox to the council, drew upon him the hatred of a numerous and powerful party in the northern counties, who remained addicted to popery. Irritated by his boldness and success in attacking their superstition, and sensible that it would be vain, and even dangerous, to prefer an accusation against him on that ground, they watched for an opportunity of catching at something in his discourses or behaviour, which they might improve to his disadvantage. He had long observed, with great anxiety, the impatience with which the papists submitted to the present government, and their eager desires for any change which might lead to the overthrow of the protestant religion,――desires which were expressed by them in the north, without that reserve which prudence dictated in places adjacent to the seat of authority. He had witnessed the joy with which they received the news of the protector’s fall, and was {92} no stranger to the satisfaction with which they circulated prognostications as to the speedy demise of the king. In a sermon preached by him about Christmas 1552, he gave vent to his feelings on this subject; and, lamenting the obstinacy of the papists, asserted, that such as were enemies to the gospel then preached in England, were secret traitors to the crown and commonwealth, thirsted for nothing more than his majesty’s death, and cared not who should reign over them, provided they got their idolatry again erected. The freedom of this speech was immediately laid hold of by his enemies, and transmitted, with many aggravations, to some great men about court, secretly in their interest, who thereupon accused him of high misdemeanours before the privy council.[137]